[License-review] Submission of license "MAPOD4D" for approval

[McCoy Smith]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
> Behalf Of Carlo Piana
> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2023 6:00 AM
> To: License submissions for OSI review <license-
> review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Submission of license "MAPOD4D" for approval
> 
> I can spot several other problematic points:
> 
> > "do not charge any price or cost, you are not allowed to ask for any kind of
> payment for the distribution or communication of the modified work in non-
> source form"
> 
> As other have already commented, I think this is against #6. I think this shows
> a misunderstanding on "free". I cannot condition my permission to use a
> software artifact to the payment of a sum of money or other requirement,
> but since nothing imposes me to distribute or provide a build (as opposed to
> provide the corresponding source code of a build), I can very much ask to be
> paid for this action, provided I don't otherwise restrict the rights in any
> proprietary way.
> 

To me  this is the most important problem with this license, and since it seems to be one of the motivating factors for creating this license in the first place, it seems this license ought never be approved, since its purpose is to violate the OSD.

> 
> Another problematic bit is with §13 "Other rights"
> 
> > Any right not specifically expressed in this license is not granted to the
> licensee.
> 
> The only rights the license mentions are under Copyright (including moral
> rights, which are incidentally not subject to license). There is no mention of
> other controlled rights necessary to use of the software, such as database
> rights or patents. Suppose I am a patent holder of a work of mine and I
> license said work under this license. Can I later go after my licensees under
> the patent regime if they use the software to compete against me? Mind, this
> is not an hypothetical scenario.

Given that I believe it is the policy of OSI to deny approval of licenses that purport to disclaim grants of at least patent licenses (expressly and impliedly), this also seems a fatal flaw, although this could be corrected with a proper disclaimer (or removal of the disclaimer).

Nevertheless, submitting a license whose purpose is to violate the OSD seems like the most important reason to deny approval and perhaps suggest that it not be resubmitted.